Giant Bomb News

Worth Reading: 10/26/12

A few thoughts on this week's journo drama, and a graphic we spent all week on. Plus, a large helping of games, stories, videos, and links to a bunch of ridiculousness.

You know who we are, and we don't hide a thing. We hope that builds a trust with the audience, one that we work very hard to maintain every day.

Games journalism is not the only form of journalism with problems. You need only pay attention to the horse race coverage of our election for a glimpse into what plagues other arenas of journalism.

That’s not an excuse for the problems in games journalism, just a reminder to keep the world in perspective. I’m not going to recount the series of events that lead to much of the Internet getting up in arms for the umpteenth time about the supposed widespread impropriety of the profession I dedicate my waking life to. I have, however, linked to a series of articles, essays, and reactionary pieces about what’s happened, and that’ll catch you up to speed.

In brief? The Eurogamer piece was on point--he took the words out of my mouth. I don't have a problem with calling out someone specifically. Unlike the iPhone fiasco with Gizmodo, this is a public figure. She's dug a deeper hole for herself by locking down her Twitter, and altering her resume. She should have just gotten in front of this, and taken her lumps. I believe she made a naive mistake, not one of cynical opportunism.

But I want to talk to you is about what matters: trust.

Do you trust me? I hope so. Because if you don’t, I want you to find someone that you do trust, and listen to them instead. Trust is the most important tool I have.The stories I file come with the built-in trust that I've reported them without compromise, or at least compromises that you, the reader, trust me to have made for the right reasons.

Doing good work in the enthusiast press has enormous challenges. Some of the fault lies with those who control access to games, and just as much has to do with other institutional issues. Some people come into games writing simply to have a way to play a bunch of games and talk about them, and they don’t want to engage in serious issues like the rampant, ingrained misogyny in design and our culture of violence. They may be found saying “game journalism is srs bzns” on Twitter. That's fine! Some people like writing about games, but they’re mostly looking for a way into the industry, and want to move into development. That's cool, too. I’m not either of those people, but I’m okay with both being around, and it’s healthy to have different, sometimes radically different, perspectives. Not every writer has to be all things to all people, and expecting anything more from a single writer makes no sense.

I take games deathly seriously, probably too much! You don’t have to. That’s okay. I don't shy away from the journalism moniker, in the hopes it will inspire me to have higher standards for my own work. I want other people to hold me to that standard, too, even if it means constantly being reminded of my own failures. It gives me something to aspire towards, a marker that I can look back on and say “yes, I’ve made progress” or “no, I’ve been lazy.”

Earning the trust of the audience is--and should be--difficult. It’s what allows me to operate in the unideal environment that is the enthusiast press. Is it a perfect place? Nope, there are problems on all sides, but people have to make it better from within, and I’m happy to be part of that fight. The moment trust is lost, drop me like a rock. That’s at the center of this firestorm that’s wrapped everyone up this weekend: a loss of trust. To say that the actions of one or a few accurately reflects on the whole is a simplistic view of the world, as there’s nothing I can do about the actions of one writer in the UK. I manipulate what’s within my control, and hope that maintains a trust with you.

It’s the beauty of Twitter’s intimate immediacy, and the level of interaction we have on Giant Bomb. You know what we’re thinking. Ask tough questions, and hopefully a bunch of really dumb ones, then make your own judgement.

Debating whether games journalism is broken is a fruitless discussion. It’s been done to death, and I’m tired of it. The best argument I can make is to continue trying to produce interesting work about the games, the culture, the people, and maybe illuminate just a little bit more on what remains a tragically undercovered, misrepresented medium. If I fail, I’ll fail because my work was shitty and I stopped putting in the proper effort, not because I threw up my hands about the limitations of my work environment. I knew what I was getting into. I’m not going to accept that it can’t get better, and I’ll try to do that one article at a time. Whether or not all of my colleagues do the same isn’t my problem.

I’m not sure how much of this ramble touches upon what actually happened this past week, but that’s how I feel about it. If you have any other questions about it, you know how to get in touch with me. Now, let's move on.

Hey, You Should Play This

While we patiently wait for Nintendo to release another Advance Wars, designer Michael Silverman has done all of us a solid with this politically-themed take on the beloved Nintendo strategy franchise. I’ve been doing research for an story (next week) about the intersection of video games and politics, and Strategery 2012 is what got the idea in my head. Strategery 2012 seems clearly designed by someone with a liberal-leaning view on politics, but is that just my own political philosophy bleeding through, blurring interpretation? It’s an idea I’m going to explore more in that upcoming feature, but I’m curious to hear what you guys think about the game, separate from its political setting.

And You Should Read These, Too

E3 2012 has long since come and gone, but there was a familiar refrain this year: what’s with all the violence? God of War and Splinter Cell took the brunt of the criticism, games with gore-soaked trailers that forced some to wonder where the line is. It’s hardly the first time the “too much violence?” question has been trotted out, but Tadgh Kelly does a better job of articulating the issues than I ever have. Kelly argues the move towards ultra-violence is a consequence of changing business models, a knee-jerk reaction by AAA publishers realizing their best defense is showcasing technologically deafening depictions of a head shot. Fortunately, he believes there’s a way out.

The real subtext of E3, AAA games and the swerve into ultraviolence is this: It's one last desperate throw of the dice to shock-and-awe players back into becoming premium customers. It's saying "Don't look at all that free gameplay out there on phones and Facebook. It's cheap, but we are premium." in a shower of gore. Just like the adult film producers they are feeling the need to punch through the fog of over-supply before the industry grows holllow. This is also why they want new consoles, a new platform story, and a new hype cycle to start. It's why they hate the very idea of the Ouya.

It’s incredibly tough to convey the experience of playing a game, a job more difficult the more abstract a game gets. Michael Abbott tossed a bunch of game reviews for Journey, Papo & Yo, and The Unfinished Swan into a word cloud generator, and discovered how few words we have to say anything about what it’s like to play them. That’s not to say Abbott claims to have discovered the words we need to solve this problem, only that it’s an issue meriting discussion.

What emerges is a stark and narrow collection of terms, none of which goes very far describing the essence or, dare I say, soul of these games. There’s nothing wrong with words like "emotional" or "experience" per se. Most games do convey a "world" and deliver "gameplay," but too often these terms function as generic placeholders. They communicate a vague sense of something richer, more vivid and complex. In a mush of overused terminology, they’re essentially meaningless.

You know who we are, and we don't hide a thing. We hope that builds a trust with the audience, one that we work very hard to maintain every day.

Games journalism is not the only form of journalism with problems. You need only pay attention to the horse race coverage of our election for a glimpse into what plagues other arenas of journalism.

That’s not an excuse for the problems in games journalism, just a reminder to keep the world in perspective. I’m not going to recount the series of events that lead to much of the Internet getting up in arms for the umpteenth time about the supposed widespread impropriety of the profession I dedicate my waking life to. I have, however, linked to a series of articles, essays, and reactionary pieces about what’s happened, and that’ll catch you up to speed.

In brief? The Eurogamer piece was on point--he took the words out of my mouth. I don't have a problem with calling out someone specifically. Unlike the iPhone fiasco with Gizmodo, this is a public figure. She's dug a deeper hole for herself by locking down her Twitter, and altering her resume. She should have just gotten in front of this, and taken her lumps. I believe she made a naive mistake, not one of cynical opportunism.

But I want to talk to you is about what matters: trust.

Do you trust me? I hope so. Because if you don’t, I want you to find someone that you do trust, and listen to them instead. Trust is the most important tool I have.The stories I file come with the built-in trust that I've reported them without compromise, or at least compromises that you, the reader, trust me to have made for the right reasons.

Doing good work in the enthusiast press has enormous challenges. Some of the fault lies with those who control access to games, and just as much has to do with other institutional issues. Some people come into games writing simply to have a way to play a bunch of games and talk about them, and they don’t want to engage in serious issues like the rampant, ingrained misogyny in design and our culture of violence. They may be found saying “game journalism is srs bzns” on Twitter. That's fine! Some people like writing about games, but they’re mostly looking for a way into the industry, and want to move into development. That's cool, too. I’m not either of those people, but I’m okay with both being around, and it’s healthy to have different, sometimes radically different, perspectives. Not every writer has to be all things to all people, and expecting anything more from a single writer makes no sense.

I take games deathly seriously, probably too much! You don’t have to. That’s okay. I don't shy away from the journalism moniker, in the hopes it will inspire me to have higher standards for my own work. I want other people to hold me to that standard, too, even if it means constantly being reminded of my own failures. It gives me something to aspire towards, a marker that I can look back on and say “yes, I’ve made progress” or “no, I’ve been lazy.”

Earning the trust of the audience is--and should be--difficult. It’s what allows me to operate in the unideal environment that is the enthusiast press. Is it a perfect place? Nope, there are problems on all sides, but people have to make it better from within, and I’m happy to be part of that fight. The moment trust is lost, drop me like a rock. That’s at the center of this firestorm that’s wrapped everyone up this weekend: a loss of trust. To say that the actions of one or a few accurately reflects on the whole is a simplistic view of the world, as there’s nothing I can do about the actions of one writer in the UK. I manipulate what’s within my control, and hope that maintains a trust with you.

It’s the beauty of Twitter’s intimate immediacy, and the level of interaction we have on Giant Bomb. You know what we’re thinking. Ask tough questions, and hopefully a bunch of really dumb ones, then make your own judgement.

Debating whether games journalism is broken is a fruitless discussion. It’s been done to death, and I’m tired of it. The best argument I can make is to continue trying to produce interesting work about the games, the culture, the people, and maybe illuminate just a little bit more on what remains a tragically undercovered, misrepresented medium. If I fail, I’ll fail because my work was shitty and I stopped putting in the proper effort, not because I threw up my hands about the limitations of my work environment. I knew what I was getting into. I’m not going to accept that it can’t get better, and I’ll try to do that one article at a time. Whether or not all of my colleagues do the same isn’t my problem.

I’m not sure how much of this ramble touches upon what actually happened this past week, but that’s how I feel about it. If you have any other questions about it, you know how to get in touch with me. Now, let's move on.

Hey, You Should Play This

While we patiently wait for Nintendo to release another Advance Wars, designer Michael Silverman has done all of us a solid with this politically-themed take on the beloved Nintendo strategy franchise. I’ve been doing research for an story (next week) about the intersection of video games and politics, and Strategery 2012 is what got the idea in my head. Strategery 2012 seems clearly designed by someone with a liberal-leaning view on politics, but is that just my own political philosophy bleeding through, blurring interpretation? It’s an idea I’m going to explore more in that upcoming feature, but I’m curious to hear what you guys think about the game, separate from its political setting.

And You Should Read These, Too

E3 2012 has long since come and gone, but there was a familiar refrain this year: what’s with all the violence? God of War and Splinter Cell took the brunt of the criticism, games with gore-soaked trailers that forced some to wonder where the line is. It’s hardly the first time the “too much violence?” question has been trotted out, but Tadgh Kelly does a better job of articulating the issues than I ever have. Kelly argues the move towards ultra-violence is a consequence of changing business models, a knee-jerk reaction by AAA publishers realizing their best defense is showcasing technologically deafening depictions of a head shot. Fortunately, he believes there’s a way out.

The real subtext of E3, AAA games and the swerve into ultraviolence is this: It's one last desperate throw of the dice to shock-and-awe players back into becoming premium customers. It's saying "Don't look at all that free gameplay out there on phones and Facebook. It's cheap, but we are premium." in a shower of gore. Just like the adult film producers they are feeling the need to punch through the fog of over-supply before the industry grows holllow. This is also why they want new consoles, a new platform story, and a new hype cycle to start. It's why they hate the very idea of the Ouya.

It’s incredibly tough to convey the experience of playing a game, a job more difficult the more abstract a game gets. Michael Abbott tossed a bunch of game reviews for Journey, Papo & Yo, and The Unfinished Swan into a word cloud generator, and discovered how few words we have to say anything about what it’s like to play them. That’s not to say Abbott claims to have discovered the words we need to solve this problem, only that it’s an issue meriting discussion.

What emerges is a stark and narrow collection of terms, none of which goes very far describing the essence or, dare I say, soul of these games. There’s nothing wrong with words like "emotional" or "experience" per se. Most games do convey a "world" and deliver "gameplay," but too often these terms function as generic placeholders. They communicate a vague sense of something richer, more vivid and complex. In a mush of overused terminology, they’re essentially meaningless.

I do trust you, Patrick -- and the rest of the GB crew. That's why I come here so much. It's obvious to me that you take your job seriously, and that you consider yourself a journalist. A lot of people in your field don't seem to do either, which makes your dedication all the more appreciated. Keep it up.

I don't think anyone could think the GiantBomb team were anything other than trustworthy. Whether you agree or not, the guys can always be trusted to give their honest opinion on a game, no matter how 'nice' the publisher might have been to them. Just look at the Medal of Honor QL the other day for example. Or hell, the incident which lead to this site being created in the first place. It's just a shame that so few other publications aspire to the same level of quality and integrity as the GB crew do. And even more of a shame that said publications are so influential (perhaps even as a result).

Patrick, I like your response, but I do wish that you were more specific about issue related to the subtle PR influence like the type that is being discussed in this neogaf thread (PR kits, dinners, social relationships with PR, etc.).

I get the talk about trust, but I guess what I really want at this point is more transparency.

I still have an issue with Rab naming & shaming two individuals in his article. It doesn't matter that one handled it well by talking to people in the comments section of the article itself and the other handled it incredibly badly. I felt it was a cheap shot and unnecessary. And that is a major shame because the point he was making was extremely valid.

That's probably a healthy stance to make on this whole issue, keeping true to one's own integrity and leaving the less scrupulous journos around to dig their own graves credibility-wise. Just a pity these libel laws of ours allows them to be dishonest to consumers without scrutiny. I'd say it doesn't affect the US too much, but you guys have Piers Morgan as a chatshow host now and that is in some way the fault of our inability to call out unconscionable d-bags before they get too popular, for fear of litigious retribution. (Also, as someone who subscribes to Private Eye, I can say this sort of thing is definitely not restricted to the enthusiast press over here.)

Anyway, some good articles this week. Sorely tempted to invest in that Hero-U Kickstarter, even if it does have a terrible name (though it might help towards procuring a possible WiiU version). Also, not to demand anything of Spookin' Scoops, but all the same see if you can't cover Pathologic and Home before that Royale Bundle ends; you might help some folk, like myself, make up their mind about that package.

You guys are awesome, Patrick and Giant Bomb as a whole! You guys get rid of all the stupid bullshit and straight-up tell us what is up. Keep up doing what you do and I know that myself and the rest of this awesome community will love you!

yep i do trust you guys more than most, hence why i give you guys 50 bucks a year and buy your shirts. i wont give blind allegiance though like some of the "white knights" here, and im glad you respect and encourage us to call you out on stuff when it is needed.

i dont agree with this piece below though, its a different story in japan, but i don't see how making characters "sexy" is a sign of hating women, its more perversion than misogyny really, least thats what i think,having characters abuse women in some shape or form, now thats what i think of as misogyny but to each their own.

Do I trust you? Not about reviews but that's just me. I don't trust reviews for huge games with massive marketing behind it. Good or bad scores I just don't.

I do trust Giant Bomb to give quality content. Quicklooks being an example. I find them far more informative than reviews. There's a game being played by someone with them telling you about it. That is far more pure than a review for an interactive medium. Recent example being Hotline Miami. I would have never bought that just by reading reviews but that Quicklook sold me on it within just a few minutes. Quicklooks can show the flaw and brights spots of game that could easily be left out purposely of a review. I love the Quicklook style and think they should be norm for every site and not written or video reviews but that's just me.

I still have an issue with Rab naming & shaming two individuals in his article. It doesn't matter that one handled it well by talking to people in the comments section of the article itself and the other handled it incredibly badly. I felt it was a cheap shot and unnecessary. And that is a major shame because the point he was making was extremely valid.

While I agree it's not really fair on the individuals in question, it's contributed to this being as big as it is, I think that's important.

I have been following, Jeff, Ryan, Brad, Alex, Rich, Greg, and others since their days on Gamespot. I read Jeff's blog before it became Giantbomb and was thrilled to hear Brad's voice on the first bombcast in which he appeared. I was happy that all of my "friends" were reuniting under a new banner and I could continue to read from people to whom I really felt connected. When Greg or Rich show up for a podcast I become overjoyed and I was thrilled when Alex became the "East coast correspondent." I quickly became a huge fan of Vinny helped in no small part by the Persona 4 endurance run. (after 100+ hours of Vinny, you are going to have an opinion).

When you came on board, I had never heard of you and I was worried. "Who is this new guy that is being injected into this perfect group of 4?" I asked myself. It only took a podcast or two for me to realize that you were serious. I fancy myself with a bit of knowledge about the game industry, but you absolutely blew me away. You seemed seasoned and for lack of better phrasing, capable of getting the scoops. I was watching "Spooking with Scoops" this week and realized that you have become part of that circle of trusted writers and opinions for me. I trust you. And damn you, just like Rich and Greg, no matter what you do, I will follow you and support you. I will click on your links and watch your streams because you have a valuable opinion that I trust.

There are "journalists" out there that feel that copying and pasting videos and stories from reddit is sufficient (I am looking at you Luke Plunkett from Kotaku) and I go out of my way not to read or click on their articles because I don't want to support that sort of trash.

So, thanks I guess are in order. I appreciate what have to say and again, I trust it and I certainly won't pretend to speak for the community, but I can't imagine that I am in the minority here. Good luck, no pressure.

Me too, I suppose, although the fact that Klepek can write 7 paragraphs about something, not even explain why he's writing it, and for us to then not immediately know what he's referring to really just makes me realize how much of a niche industry games journalism really is. For people involved in it, it's a big deal, but for 99.999% of everyone else, it barely even exists. Sorta like how I feel about car magazines and such.

Also, as far as violence goes: violence is literally the only way most games let you interact with what's on screen. The only options there are to invent alternatives to this (which would require a certain amount of imagination) or to push what is already in place further. It's not exactly surprising that game developers take the easier route.

Patrick, you are among the best. You are one of the very few people in your profession that I would call a "journalist," but I think that term has lost almost all of its meaning because of what's happening in other areas of journalism. You're reporting and interviews put you at another level besides just being a video game critic/reviewer/whatever term you'd like to use. *Not saying just being a critic is in anyway inferior to what Patrick does or vice-a-versa.

It would be nice if Patrick went into a bit more detail in the short version of this supposed Eurogamer kurfuffle because I only had a vague idea of what he was talking about. Where are the links he said he would post?

It would be nice if Patrick went into a bit more detail in the short version of this supposed Eurogamer kurfuffle because I only had a vague idea of what he was talking about. Where are the links he said he would post?

Ser...seriously? They are right there near the bottom...

"Noteworthy Pieces on That Journalism Thing"

So ok ok guys, I guess I missed this. If I am reading it correctly. This one guy wrote in Eurogamer about how he feels exclusives, getting into bed with PR people, and stuff like that is bad. Right? Then this girl goes batshit and everyone starts getting drama llama about it? Am I reading into that correctly?

But let me add an edit to this. I trust Patrick, Jeff, Vinny, Drew, Dave, Ryan, Brad and everyone else at giantbomb. You guys shield me from this kind of thing. From you guys, I get a fantastic view of the good side of video game journalism. After reading this, I am thankful that I am here. I'll keep supporting you guys whenever you need it.

Giantbomb is pretty much the only videogame site I visit, and has been that way for the past few years. Partly because of the great entertainment, and partly because I know that the views that I get are honest. This was reinforced by Jeff discussing why he hasn't had a good time with Dance Central 3, a game that has been shown by PR folk (even one as loveable as Solid Drake) numerous times at Giantbomb. I've also completely forgot that they've only been in these new offices what, 7 months? You guys are fine. Keep doing that game talkin' you guys do.

It's more about the insider reaction to the article : threatening legal action/fellow game journalists, and their PR cohorts(!) either belittling or ignoring the issue. I don't think it's a question of either trust or no trust, there's levels. When you are seen to have a relationship with Publisher PR that goes beyond legitimate business, then a certain doubt to your objectivity has to arise. You can either reinforce that doubt by saying nothing on your own website when an issue like this comes up. Except for making condescending remarks, misrepresenting the issue, and lol'ing with your PR BFFs on Twitter. Or you can be open about what is going on, and your relationship to it. Which is what GB has been doing quite well so far.